Text Size

-

+

reset

Romney “is entirely right in terms of the policy,” Owens said, despite there being a “slight political risk” in Colorado. “It’s overwhelmed by the correct perception that President Obama has not been favorable for oil and gas,” he said. “You don’t find a lot of support for President Obama among the guys on the drilling rigs.”

As aggressively as Obama has gone after Romney on wind energy, Romney has gone after Obama’s boasts about rising U.S. oil and gas production. Romney points to statistics showing that production has been booming on state and private lands but falling on federal lands.

Romney “didn’t mess around” and “very aggressively” campaigned on a pro-hydrocarbon argument in the state, Ciruli said. Romney’s first two visits to the state featured stops at oil, gas and coal operations.

Obama has publicly embraced oil and gas too, stealing the Republican mantra of “all of the above.”

“The big difference here is the people of Colorado support the president’s position that we should be supporting all forms of energy,” said former Clinton Energy Secretary Federico Peña, a surrogate for Obama in Colorado. He said Romney’s plan gives short shrift to green energy and conservation.

Meanwhile, wind industry representatives have tried to get the ear of the Romney campaign.

Owens led a recent meeting of the Romney campaign’s 50-member Colorado energy advisory committee, which included a representative of the wind company RES Americas. (RES Americas officials declined to comment.) Owens said other wind industry people have spoken to him about “making sure the governor understands their position.”

He compared the wind representatives to “people who advise the Obama campaign on oil and gas, even though their company or the industry might think that the president hasn’t been supportive. It’s still important to be able to get your voice heard.”

Colorado has about 107,000 direct and indirect oil and gas industry jobs, according to a December study by the University of Colorado.

That’s down quite a bit from the 150,000 to 190,000 industry jobs the state had about four years ago, thanks mainly to the economic downturn but also because of the implementation of some of the nation’s most comprehensive oil and gas regulations, said Doug Flanders, director of policy and spokesman for the Colorado Oil & Gas Association.

Meanwhile, the state’s wind industry is reeling, and Vestas Wind Systems has cut about 500 jobs in Colorado.

Peña said those blue-collar wind jobs matter.

“People in Colorado know that wind is important to the state,” he said. “People who are getting their pink slips are not very happy they’re getting them right before Christmas. So that’s the reality of the Romney position.”

The wind industry’s trade group isn’t taking sides.

American Wind Energy Association spokesman Peter Kelley noted that Obama and Romney mentioned wind energy six times in their second debate and that all references were positive. “And we think whoever is president is not going to want to lose 37,000 jobs right around Inauguration Day,” Kelley said.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:17 p.m. on October 24, 2012.

Wind generation is inherently flawed. A full-power backup means of generation must be built to operate when the wind is not blowing or not blowing hard enough (perhaps a wind farm next to the capital building in DC?).

That, combined with wind's inherent high cost for construction and generation (up to double conventional generation) should require that any consideration of a wind system have a "Proceed with Economic Caution" tag attached.

I'm a proud worker in a green industry, and though I've never considered myself a tree-hugger I am vitally concerned about the havoc we have wrecked on the environment. I don't know a single environmentalist who would give Pres Obama high marks for his all the above energy policy. The guy has not deterred the industries from digging, pumping, expanding or any other 'ing" they want to do. But, he has also invested mightily in green energy - both production and conservation. The truth is often a victim, but in current Republican politics the truth never even shows up.

When Romney is elected and starts getting the national economy back on the tracks, these "green energy" workers in Iowa and Colorado won't have to depend on a government-subsidized industry for work. They will be able to find a real job with real wages.

“If you were looking for a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I’m probably not your guy.”

“If you can’t beat your opponent’s ideas, you distort those ideas — maybe you just make some up. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as somebody people should run away from. You make big elections about small things.”

“We have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name calling, without the assumptions of the worst in other people’s motives.”

Comrades Obama and Harkin are so lost on the issue of wind energy. I was personally involved with the installation of 102 wind sites (US, Euro, Canada, etc.). I can say with direct experience that Obama is an idiot pushing wind or solar. Without massive government payments (aka taxpayer money), massive higher rates paid per kwh, massive tax credits, massive land use, etc., wind or solar can survive more abundant and lower cost energy (natural gas, oil, coal, water).

Manufacturing of the machines and blades has been forced off shore in an attempt to get lower costs to develop a site. Obama is nuts if he thinks these jobs can come to the US without massive government payments. We have at least 200 years of other energy sources to have to be the only nation on this planet still pushing wind or solar. This week, Germany announced they are halting their development of solar as it cost too much.

So, you can vote for Obama and lock taxpayers with mountains of debt forever.

It cannot generate a profit except at exorbitant prices to consumers, thus subsidies. No one wants the giant mills around them. They can be heard over large distances at times, and they are not exactly pleasing to view (as the Kennedy family made clear in their PUBLIC demand none be located near them)

I belong to 2 different forums of homeowners dedicated to small scale wind power, and it is VERY DIFFICULT to get that to be useful whether on a lakeside in Maine, or a hillock on Kansas. It is a hobby and a dream. But for the govt to support manufacturing of electricity, as it does other solar manufacturing will have the same result. If we are to spend federal dollars it should be spent on pure research where the results are leveraged per dollar spent. I want to have a windmill, but I won't commit my own money to it, even though I live in a prime spot for wind because the experience of others indicates it is NOT RELIABLE at this level --- YET, and the payback time is still too long because they entry price is too high. This eliminates wind as a source for me. Even though this is what I would prefer. I cannot do what I prefer because it is not economical or reliable. This mimics the national situation

We are far from success in this endeavor, and far from success in plug in vehicles, or solar power because the finished consumer products are unreliable (car batteries in New England or North Dakota in Feb? Anyone know what -10F does to battery capacity?) and INCREDIBLY expensive.

That is a description of needed research. No one is against pure research when the payoff has the kind of promise this does.

But to subsidize manufacturing is an IRRESPONSIBLE business decision. Of, course, that is the hallmark of govt spending when it comes to actually making things. Not only are the decisions bad, but they often are to repay favors.